MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414584975 · doi:10.1093/evolut/qpag095

How do mate-finding Allee effects affect evolutionary rescue?

2025· article· en· W4414584975 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of TorontoGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsAllee effectPopulationAdaptation (eye)Population sizeMatingSet (abstract data type)Mate choice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In sexually reproducing populations, the challenge of finding mates at low densities can impose a strong demographic Allee effect. Environmental change can cause a population to fall below its Allee threshold by reducing the population size or by increasing the threshold if the latter depends on affected life-history traits. Evolutionary rescue then relies on overcoming the Allee effect, which gets increasingly difficult as the population declines. Despite mate-finding Allee effects being common, most models of evolutionary rescue assume that mating is assured even at low densities. Here, we set up a population genetic model to study the potential for evolutionary rescue of a population below its Allee threshold. For the analysis, we combine stochastic computer simulations with mathematical arguments. As expected, mate limitation can severely impede rescue, but the extent differs across sexual systems. We further show that it shifts the optimal sex ratio for dioecious but not for androdioecious populations, alters optimal evolutionary routes when there are trade-offs between increasing mate-finding efficiency and fecundity, and enhances the importance of standing genetic variation relative to de novo mutants. Overall, our results highlight the importance of accounting for positive density dependence in the assessment of a population's scope for evolutionary rescue.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207